Re: unzip552 and PK 2.1 Compat

2006-02-20 Thread Alexander E. Patrakov
Tushar Teredesai пишет: On 2/20/06, Alexander E. Patrakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Thus, libunzip.so is a useless library for BLFS readers and should not be installed in BLFS. That applies to any other useless library. That is not the general policy. Sorry for my misunderstanding. -- Ale

Re: [Announce] LFS LiveCD 6.2-pre3 Released

2006-02-20 Thread Alexander E. Patrakov
William Harrington wrote: Does anyone know if that'd be good to put along with the messages when somone hits F1 for options when the livecd starts using kernels >= 2.6.14? The next pre-release LiveCD will use linux-2.6.16-rc4 unconditionally, unless Linus releases 2.6.16 sooner. However, th

Re: [Announce] LFS LiveCD 6.2-pre3 Released

2006-02-20 Thread William Harrington
Hello, Finally was able to get around to getting this to work with my SATA system. edited include/linux/libata.h to #define ATA_ENABLE_ATAPI and poof, after my dozen burns works great. I shall build a system with it soon. Future knowledge if no one knows: In the past I have posted to

Re: Udev_update branch: /dev/pts and /dev/shm directories not created

2006-02-20 Thread Matthew Burgess
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: The issue is that MODALIAS and ${modalias} are not supported in udev > 080. Please use ENV{MODALIAS} and $env{MODALIAS} instead. Well, those rules work for me with udev-085. However, as they're now no longer supported, I don't have any qualms with changing them t

Re: Udev_update branch: /dev/pts and /dev/shm directories not created

2006-02-20 Thread Archaic
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 01:14:58PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > > There is another issue that may (or may not) need discussion. The > procedures in chapters 6,7,8 are designed to be done in one sitting. If > a user needs to power down somewhere in the middle of the process (think > students in a

Re: Udev_update branch: /dev/pts and /dev/shm directories not created

2006-02-20 Thread Bruce Dubbs
Archaic wrote: > On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 11:36:46AM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > >>But not all possible devices. The minimum would be the device where >>grub will be writing the MBR, usually hda or sda. > > I do not think it would be wise for us to attempt at guessing where the > MBR will reside.

Re: Udev_update branch: /dev/pts and /dev/shm directories not created

2006-02-20 Thread Archaic
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 11:36:46AM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > > But not all possible devices. The minimum would be the device where > grub will be writing the MBR, usually hda or sda. I do not think it would be wise for us to attempt at guessing where the MBR will reside. As such, mount --bind

Re: Udev_update branch: /dev/pts and /dev/shm directories not created

2006-02-20 Thread Bruce Dubbs
Archaic wrote: > On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 11:46:41PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > >>I believe (but could be wrong) that X can be built and installed without >>any devices in /dev > > > But any and all post-LFS package building is irrelevant in this context. That is true. > If one is to follow th

Re: Udev_update branch: /dev/pts and /dev/shm directories not created

2006-02-20 Thread Archaic
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 10:14:58AM -0500, Joe Ciccone wrote: > Archaic wrote: > > > But any and all post-LFS package building is irrelevant in this context. > > Not really, as bruce said he builds openssl/openssh in the chroot, I do > also along with a whole system sometimes. The key words were

Re: Udev_update branch: /dev/pts and /dev/shm directories not created

2006-02-20 Thread Joe Ciccone
Archaic wrote: >If one is to follow the LFS book, one must have devices present prior to >installing the MBR. That alone is reason to sort out this problem. We >used mount --bind before. Perhaps it is time to bring it back. > > I agree with that. > But any and all post-LFS package building is i

Re: Udev_update branch: /dev/pts and /dev/shm directories not created

2006-02-20 Thread Alexander E. Patrakov
Richard A Downing wrote: Bryan Kadzban wrote: ACTION=="add", SUBSYSTEM=="?*" MODALIAS=="?*", RUN+="/sbin/modprobe ${modalias}" Thanks Brian. I understood that. Unfortunately changing the rules didn't fix my problem. Nothing loads the modules. So I guess I must have a typo somewhere else.

Re: Udev_update branch: /dev/pts and /dev/shm directories not created

2006-02-20 Thread Richard A Downing
Bryan Kadzban wrote: > Richard A Downing wrote: >> I tried Jim Gifford's Cross-lfs udev patches, and they work fine, so >> that's what I'm going with for now. > > I'm not familiar with these patches, and I can't seem to find them in > the (x86 at least) cross-lfs book. Where are they? > > Seein

Re: Udev_update branch: /dev/pts and /dev/shm directories not created

2006-02-20 Thread Bryan Kadzban
Richard A Downing wrote: > I tried Jim Gifford's Cross-lfs udev patches, and they work fine, so > that's what I'm going with for now. I'm not familiar with these patches, and I can't seem to find them in the (x86 at least) cross-lfs book. Where are they? Seeing the patches might help figure out

Re: Udev_update branch: /dev/pts and /dev/shm directories not created

2006-02-20 Thread Richard A Downing
Bryan Kadzban wrote: > > ACTION=="add", SUBSYSTEM=="?*" MODALIAS=="?*", RUN+="/sbin/modprobe > ${modalias}" Thanks Brian. I understood that. Unfortunately changing the rules didn't fix my problem. Nothing loads the modules. So I guess I must have a typo somewhere else. I tried Jim Gifford's